The Great Partisan Shift | Robert F. Kennedy Jr. | EP 484

The political landscape is shifting as disillusioned Democrats find common ground with Republicans, highlighting a deep divide in values and priorities.

I don't think she has the ability to talk to foreign leaders. I haven't seen any evidence of that, and I think that she is particularly susceptible to manipulation because she doesn't have firm ideas about her own beliefs. I fear that she'll be manipulated by them, and that those entities actually want a nuclear war. If we get a president like that, it will be too late for our country to ever recover over the next four years.

Music plays

Hello everybody! Today, I had the privilege of engaging in round two with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The first time we had a discussion, which I enjoyed a lot and thought was very worthwhile, was unfortunately eradicated by the powers that be at YouTube. This was not something that I was happy with, and I still remain unhappy about it. We will see if the same thing happens this time.

A lot has changed since that first interview, most markedly that RFK is now allied with Donald Trump. This is quite the strange turn of affairs, as we have a cadre of disaffected Democrats running on the Republican side against Kamala Harris. In our discussion, we talked a lot about why RFK has become disenchanted with the Democrats. I had pushed him on that issue in our first discussion, asking him, for example, when the left goes too far. We finally have the answer to that question in this podcast, as RFK outlined five different ways the left has gone too far.

He highlighted their lack of care for free speech, the fact that they are now the party of war, and that they are no longer the party of the working class. These are just the tip of the iceberg. We also discussed the policy issues that Kennedy has been addressing with Trump, concentrating particularly on the health crisis, free speech, and international peace. These do strike me as three major issues that we need to contend with.

We talked about the development of Trump's new team, which is a remarkable occurrence. The fact that he has Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Tulsi Gabbard, and of course, Kennedy himself, changes the political landscape dramatically—something the Trump team hasn't yet capitalized on. We also touched on what the union might look like under a Trump administration with all these remarkable people in it.

So, join us for all of that, assuming YouTube allows it. I am very curious about the alliance that you formed with Trump. I wonder whether you ever imagined that such a thing was a likelihood and why you decided it was a good idea.

RFK responded, "I never imagined such a thing was a likelihood. In fact, I was reading a statement that I had forgotten I made, but I made it repeatedly during the 18 months when I was running. When people often asked me why I didn't run with Trump, I would say that I was approached by the Trump campaign about running as his VP. My answer to that was always that it would result in a divorce with my wife. Even if I had the inclination to do that, it was something that she constitutionally could not have handled at that point. It would have impacted her job, her friendships, and her family."

He continued, "A lot changed during the election. I saw this metamorphosis of the Democratic Party. The party that I was born into and raised in has been involved with my family since my great-grandparents came over in 1848 during the Potato Famine and landed in Boston. It was the Democratic Party that provided for them, ensuring they got food and jobs, and protected them against the reigning hierarchy of power in Boston at that time, which was run by what they called the Brahmin class—very hostile to Irish Catholics in particular. My great-grandfather was the first Irish Catholic mayor, and he was part of the rebellion.

=> 00:05:36

The Democratic Party has always been a lifeline for the marginalized, transforming from a beacon of peace to a complex force in politics, reflecting the evolving identity of America itself.

In 1848, during the Potato Famine, many Irish immigrants landed in Boston. They arrived penniless and friendless, and it was the Democratic party that provided for them, ensuring they received food and jobs. The party also protected them against the reigning hierarchy of power in Boston at that time, which was dominated by the Brahman class, known for being very hostile to Irish Catholics in particular.

My great-grandfather was the first Irish Catholic mayor of Boston. While there had been one Irish Catholic mayor before him, he was chosen by the Brahman class. My great-grandfather was the first to represent the Irish rebellion and the ultimate takeover of Boston and many other urban areas by Irish Catholic politicians. My grandfather, John Fitzgerald, affectionately known as Honey Fitz due to his beautiful singing voice, was a contemporary of Patrick Joseph Kennedy, who was a political boss and state legislator in Boston. Their children intermarried; for instance, my Rose Fitzgerald married my grandfather Joseph Kennedy, who was the treasurer for Franklin Roosevelt's campaign. He was the only Wall Street figure who supported Roosevelt and later became the first commissioner of the SEC.

Although my grandfather had political ambitions of his own, he ultimately ruined those ambitions with his anti-war positions during both World War I and World War II. He served as the U.S. ambassador to the court of St. James under Roosevelt in Great Britain. His son, Joe, who was killed during the war, had aspirations to run for president. My grandfather had ambitions for him to be the first Irish Catholic President. Joe gave a keynote address at the Democratic Convention in 1940. Ultimately, my uncle, John Kennedy, became the first Irish Catholic President of the United States.

My father served as Attorney General and then in the United States Senate. Tragically, he was assassinated during his own run for president. My uncle, Ted Kennedy, was the second longest-serving member of the United States Senate. Thus, the DNA of the Democratic party was deeply embedded in my character and identity. I grew up in the party, beginning my campaigning at the age of six on my uncle's campaign. I attended the convention in Los Angeles that year and have participated in almost every Democratic Convention since then, working on probably a hundred campaigns. I was a stalwart in the Democratic party, but the party I grew up with has changed dramatically over the years.

The Democratic party of my youth was the party of peace. My uncle, John Kennedy, was once asked by his best friend, Ben Bradley, then the editor of the Washington Post, what he wanted on his gravestone. Without skipping a beat, my uncle replied, “He kept the peace.” He believed that the primary job of a president was to keep the country out of war. He wanted children in Africa and Latin America to think of a Peace Corps volunteer rather than a man in a military uniform with a gun. He envisioned them thinking of the Kennedy milk program, which provided nutrition to millions of malnourished kids around the world, as well as USAID and the Alliance for Progress—programs that projected economic power rather than military power abroad.

My uncle faced tremendous pressure to go to war in Laos, which he resisted in 1961. He was also pressured during the Checkpoint Charlie crisis in 1962, the Bay of Pigs in 1961, and again during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1963. Additionally, he was urged to send troops to Vietnam, with all of his advisers insisting he needed to send 250,000 troops or the government would collapse. He maintained that it was their government and that we could not fight their war for them. Ultimately, under great pressure, he sent 16,000 military advisers who were not under his rules of engagement and were not allowed to participate in combat. Some did, however. In October of 1963, upon learning that a Green Beret had been killed in Vietnam, he turned to his aide, Walt Rostow, and requested a complete list of U.S. casualties. Rostow returned an hour later with the news that 75 Americans had died at that point.

=> 00:10:13

In a world where chaos reigns, confronting your fears is the only path to true strength.

During the Bay of Pigs and again in 1963 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy faced significant pressure regarding military involvement in Vietnam. His advisers insisted that he had to send 250,000 troops to Vietnam or risk the collapse of the government. However, he maintained that "it's their government; we cannot fight their war for them." Ultimately, under immense pressure, he sent 16,000 military advisers to Vietnam. These advisers were not under his Rules of Engagement, which meant they were not allowed to participate in combat, although some did.

In October of 1963, Kennedy learned that a Green Beret had been killed in Vietnam. He turned to his aide, Wal Rosow, and requested a complete list of U.S. casualties. Rosow returned an hour later with the information, revealing that 75 to 76 Americans had died at that point. My uncle then stated, "it's too many," and that afternoon, on October 22, 1963, he signed National Security Order 263, which ordered all U.S. military personnel out of Vietnam by 1965, with the first thousand coming home by December—just six weeks later. Tragically, he was killed 30 days after signing that order. A week later, President Johnson, his successor, rescinded National Security Order 263 and sent 265,000 Americans to Vietnam, marking the beginning of a war that would become deeply entrenched in American history.

My father opposed that war in 1968 and was also killed in the process. Subsequently, Nixon took office and escalated the conflict, sending 560,000 Americans to Vietnam. The war resulted in the deaths of a million to two million Vietnamese, while 56,000 of our children, including my cousin George Skel, died during the Tet Offensive. America then embarked on a different path, becoming a feature of the military-industrial complex, which my uncle had warned against three days before he took office in 1961. He spent three thousand days of his presidency striving to keep us out of war and the military-industrial complex at bay.

This struggle against war was a defining feature of the Democratic Party; we were the party against war, while the Republicans were the pro-war party. We championed civil rights, including constitutional rights and particularly freedom of speech, which serves as the bedrock for all other rights in the United States Constitution. A country that has the capacity to censor its critics has the potential for every kind of atrocity. My father understood that any constraints on free speech were the first step down the slippery slope to totalitarianism.

Is it fair to say then that you found the Democrats at the present time have become the party of war? Now, under Trump, the party seems poised to lead us into another conflict.

Shifting focus, we can discuss depression. Depressed individuals often feel sad, frustrated, and disappointed, experiencing a range of negative emotions simultaneously in a manner that can be paralyzing. Depression is fundamentally a biochemical disorder. As a behaviorist, I sought to determine whether a person was suffering due to physiological illness or from the cumulative micro and macro catastrophes of life. The probability that simply introducing an anti-depressant will fix a life that is catastrophically out of order is virtually zero. The more unstable one's life is, the less serotonin the brain produces, leading to heightened sensitivity to negative emotions and suppressed positive emotions.

To address the problem of suffering, one must engage in exposure therapy, which involves voluntarily confronting the obstacles that hinder progress. This practice can foster bravery and help individuals deal with their problems. Voluntary confrontation with the forces of darkness and chaos is a fundamental aspect of life.

In the context of current global tensions, Putin recently stated that if we send missiles into Russia, he would consider it an act of war against NATO and the United States. He possesses more weapons than any other nation, being the largest nuclear power in the world, with 1,200 more nuclear warheads than we do.

=> 00:15:03

Confronting darkness is the key to bravery; facing your fears can transform suffering into strength.

The discussion begins with the idea that hypersensitivity to negative emotion can suppress positive emotions. The speaker suggests that one should take the problem of suffering and analyze it, asking, "why are you suffering?" This approach resembles exposure therapy, which allows individuals to practice confronting the obstacles that prevent them from moving forward. By doing so, it can make them braver and better equipped to deal with their problems. The speaker emphasizes that voluntary confrontation with the forces of darkness and chaos is the fundamental story of life.

In a recent statement, Putin has warned that if missiles are sent into Russia, he would consider it an act of war against NATO and the United States. He possesses more weapons than any other nation, being the biggest nuclear power in the world, with 1,200 more nuclear warheads than the U.S. Furthermore, his electronic warfare systems are reportedly a generation ahead of American technology, as demonstrated in Ukraine, where they have successfully intercepted many incoming threats.

The speaker reflects on Kamala Harris's belligerent speech during a convention, which seemed to be influenced by neoconservative ideologies. Notably, the CIA director spoke just before her, and military personnel were also present, which the speaker finds inconceivable compared to their upbringing. Harris has recently touted endorsements from figures like Dick Cheney and John Bolton, both of whom were once viewed as war criminals by many Democrats in 2004. The speaker recalls that, at that time, the qualification for being a Democrat included viewing Cheney as a war criminal.

Cheney and Bolton were instrumental in implementing the Patriot Act, which led to the establishment of a surveillance state and legalized spying by the CIA against American citizens. This was unprecedented and marked a significant shift in American policy. The speaker argues that Cheney and Bolton also led the U.S. into the Iraq War, which is considered one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in American history. The war resulted in the destruction of Iraq, which had previously served as a bulwark against Iranian expansion. The October 7th invasion is seen as a direct consequence of the U.S. actions in Iraq, which has now become a proxy for Iran.

The speaker highlights that the U.S. killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein did, transforming Iraq into a cauldron of conflict between Sunni and Shia factions. This turmoil contributed to the rise of ISIS and resulted in the displacement of between two and four million immigrants into Europe, destabilizing nations across the continent for a generation. The emergence of totalitarianism in Europe and the abolition of free speech are viewed as direct outcomes of the Iraq War, with events like Brexit also being linked to this conflict.

The speaker recalls that Dick Cheney introduced the concept of torture into American policy, which had previously been rejected by leaders like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Washington famously stated that he would rather lose the war than resort to torture, emphasizing the importance of maintaining moral integrity. Lincoln also faced similar dilemmas during the Civil War and established guidelines against torture that later informed the Geneva Convention.

Cheney's policies, including extraordinary renditions and the open torture of detainees, are criticized, and the speaker notes that Cheney would not disavow these actions today. Instead, he would likely defend them, claiming that the war in Iraq was justified because it removed Saddam Hussein from power. The speaker expresses disbelief at Cheney's continued influence and suggests that the Democratic Party has now aligned itself with neoconservative ideals.

In a previous interview, the speaker posed a question about when the left goes too far, to which the response was that they have gone too far when they align with figures like Dick Cheney. This alignment is seen as a significant shift in the political landscape, raising questions about the future direction of the Democratic Party and its values.

=> 00:19:36

The Democratic Party has transformed from a champion of the working class to a vessel for billionaires, while the Republican Party has shifted to embrace the working poor and true environmentalism.

The discussion begins with a stark critique of openly torturing people and those who brag about it. If you asked Dick Cheney today whether he disavows any of those policies, he would likely respond, "No, I embrace them." He views the war in Iraq as a great thing, claiming, "We got rid of Saddam Hussein." This perspective is described as insanity, and it is noted that Cheney has not changed his stance.

The conversation then shifts to the endorsement of Kamala Harris, questioning the motivations behind it. The assertion is made that it is not due to a change among the neocons, but rather because the Democratic Party is now the party of the neocons. In a previous interview, the speaker posed a question to a Democrat about when the left goes too far, to which the response was that they have gone too far when they align with Dick Cheney. This alignment is indicative of the current state of the Democratic Party.

The speaker reflects on the extraordinary inversion that has occurred within the Democratic Party, drawing from their studies of American history. They note that American history is often analyzed through four significant realignments among political parties, and assert that we are currently experiencing one of those realignments. The Democratic Party, which was once the party of civil rights, has now become the party of censorship and surveillance. Historically, it fought against the subversion of American democracy by big corporations and Wall Street, but now it has aligned itself with Wall Street, big Pharma, big Tech, and the military-industrial complex.

The speaker reminisces about their childhood, stating that the Democratic Party was the party of the poor, while the Republican Party represented the wealthy. They highlight a shift, noting that 70 or 80% of the wealth in this country was once concentrated in the Republican Party. The Democratic Party was associated with firefighters, cops, and union leaders. An interesting development is mentioned regarding the Republican convention, where Shan O'Brien, the president of the Teamsters Union, spoke to great applause—a scenario that was previously unheard of.

The speaker shares their recent experience of touring with JD Vance, where they spoke at a firefighters convention in Boston. Vance emphasized the importance of the Republican Party for collective bargaining, which was previously considered a criminal act by Republicans during the 2020 election.

In discussing the current political landscape, the speaker notes that roughly 50% of the people in this country voted for Trump, while the other 50% voted for Biden. They point out that the 50% who voted for Trump own 30% of the wealth, whereas the 50% who voted for Biden own 70%. This leads to the assertion that the Republican Party is now the party of the poor, the working class, and unions, while the Democratic Party has transformed into the party of billionaires.

The speaker argues that Donald Trump chased billionaires out of the Republican Party, and they have since sought refuge elsewhere. Additionally, they contend that the Republican Party is now the party of true environmentalists. The speaker reflects on their background in environmental work, having worked for commercial fishermen on the Hudson River and other rivers across the country, focusing on protecting habitats, clean air, and water.

They express concern over a chemical called atrazine, which is the second most used pesticide in the United States. Despite being banned in Europe and many other countries, it remains in use here and is found in 63% of our drinking water. The speaker references a notable experiment conducted by Tyler Hayes, an African-American scientist at the University of Berkeley. In this experiment, 70 African water frogs were placed in an aquarium with atrazine levels below the EPA's threshold, leading to 60% of the frogs becoming sterile and 10% turning female and producing fertile eggs.

The speaker emphasizes the need for further studies to understand the potential impacts of such chemicals on human health, particularly on children. They conclude by discussing the current administration's proposals for significant tax hikes, including a 40% top income tax rate, a 7% increase to the corporate tax, and a capital gains tax on unrealized gains.

=> 00:24:06

We're ignoring the real environmental threats while fixating on carbon; it's time to remember that protecting nature is about preserving our own future, not just a line on a graph.

The discussion begins with a concerning observation regarding the impact of certain substances on wildlife. It was noted that 60 of those frogs became sterile, and they were all male frogs. Furthermore, 10% of those frogs turned female, and they were able to produce fertile eggs. This indicates a significant alteration in their sex. Typically, when such changes are observed in an animal model, the next step would be to conduct tests in a mammal model and subsequently in a human model. However, these tests were never done, leaving us uncertain about the impact on children, if any. It is suggested that those studies ought to be done.

In the context of current economic policies, the Administration is proposing significant tax hikes, including a 40% top income tax rate, a 7% increase to the corporate tax, and a capital gains tax on unrealized gains. Additionally, there are plans to add nearly $1 trillion to an existing $2 trillion deficit. In light of these developments, many individuals are considering tax-sheltered and inflation-sheltered options for their savings. In this climate, Birch Gold Group offers valuable assistance. They can help convert an existing IRA or 401K into a gold IRA without any out-of-pocket expenses.

Listen closely; this is crucial information for our listeners. September marks the final month of an extraordinary offer. This is your last chance to acquire something truly special with a qualifying purchase from Birch Gold Group. I am talking about the limited edition highly coveted one-of-a-kind 24 Karat gold-plated truth bomb. To claim your eligibility before September 30th, you need to text Jordan to 9898 98. Don’t wait for the president's spending spree to tank the dollar even further; protect your financial future with gold. Text Jordan to 9898 98 today.

The speaker expresses frustration over the lack of attention given to the threat of endocrine disruptors, stating, "I've been trying for 40 years to get Republicans, you know, Fox News and elsewhere to pay attention to this threat." They recount how Dr. Carlson produced an extraordinary documentary on endocrine disruptors a year and a half ago, which was met with absolute attack by the left and by the mainstream environmental community.

Another significant issue highlighted is the mainstream environmental movement's fixation on carbon alone. The speaker argues that people become environmentalists not out of fear of a line on a graph but out of love for the habitat, love for the environment, and love for our purple mountains' majesties and our rivers and streams. They emphasize that we are not protecting nature solely for the sake of the fishes and birds; rather, we are protecting it for our own sake because nature enriches us. Unfortunately, this perspective has been forgotten by the environmental movement, which has become fixated solely on carbon.

The speaker then discusses the consequences of this fixation, particularly on the Atlantic coast of North America, where 21 offshore wind farms are being built. This development has privatized 5,000 square miles of land between the Gulf of Maine and North Carolina. They describe the 2200 turbines being installed, noting that the blades are thousands of feet long, larger than the Eiffel Tower, and all manufactured in China. The speaker raises concerns about the environmental impact, citing an incident where a turbine exploded off Nantucket, sending shards into the water, making it unsafe to swim or visit the beaches.

Moreover, they mention the detrimental effects on marine life, stating that the National Marine Fisheries have warned that the turbines could lead to the collapse of the cod fishery due to their presence in spawning grounds. The environmental movement, however, appears indifferent to these consequences. The speaker highlights alarming statistics, noting that in the past two years, there have been 109 oil tests, a significant increase from the average of 16 to 20 a year since 2016. They express concern for the right whale population, which is critically endangered, with only 368 left in the world and merely 70 fertile females. The speaker concludes by lamenting that everybody is pretending it's not the wind farms causing these issues, despite the lack of other explanations or changes in the environment.

=> 00:28:13

The environmental movement is failing to protect our oceans and endangered species, prioritizing subsidies over real solutions.

The environmental movement has been criticized for its lack of concern regarding the impact of wind farms on marine life, particularly whale populations. It is widely acknowledged that these wind farms are destroying the whale populations, yet there seems to be a collective denial about the consequences. In the past two years, there have been 109 oil tests and an alarming increase in whale groundings, with an average of four groundings a year rising to this unprecedented number. Since 2016, the average has been 16 to 20 groundings a year, particularly affecting the right whales, of which there are only 368 left in the world, including merely 70 fertile females.

The situation is dire for large whale species like the humac whales, which are also being exterminated. Despite the clear evidence, many are pretending that the wind farms are not the cause. There have been no significant changes in other factors that could explain this decline. The Federal Environmental agencies that oversee oil production in the Gulf of Mexico have a rule stating that if there is a single whale death within 50 miles of an operation, all activities must cease until the death is explained. However, this rule has been waived, and there has been a refusal to investigate the deaths properly or conduct necropsies on the deceased whales, keeping the public in the dark about the actual causes.

While larger environmental organizations like NRDC, Sierra Club, and Greenpeace are seemingly ignoring the issue, smaller coastal environmental groups are actively protesting and demanding investigations. Unfortunately, these smaller groups have been excluded from the decision-making process. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that many of the wind farms are being constructed by foreign companies. Offshore wind energy, while I support onshore wind, which is efficient and effective, is considerably more expensive. Onshore wind can provide power at about 11 cents a kilowatt hour, whereas offshore wind costs 33 cents a kilowatt hour. The average energy price in the United States is around 14 to 16 cents a kilowatt hour, making offshore wind more than double the cost of onshore wind.

No utility would invest in these offshore towers without substantial federal subsidies and tax breaks. Foreign companies cannot take advantage of U.S. tax breaks, so they rely on major financial institutions like BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, and Wells Fargo to finance their projects. These financial giants have benefited from the tax breaks provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, which was touted as President Joe Biden's signature environmental accomplishment. However, this act does not genuinely protect the environment; instead, it promotes subsidies for large corporations that are ultimately destroying the environment.

Additionally, $779 billion in subsidies are being allocated to carbon capture initiatives, which are damaging farmland in the Midwest. This funding is funneled to large oil and methane companies to extract the last drops of oil by injecting carbon into deep wells. Rather than reducing carbon emissions, this process is likely increasing carbon in the environment. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that one byproduct of carbon capture is sulfuric acid, which the Woods Hole Marine Institute has contracted to dump 2 million metric tons of into the ocean. This material is devastating to marine life and can destroy genetic material at the cellular level.

The complicity of various organizations in these practices is alarming and raises serious ethical concerns. It is disheartening to witness a reversal in priorities, where Republicans are now focused on protecting the environment, while the Democratic Party appears to be aligned with practices that harm it. This inversion of responsibility is not only troubling but also underscores the urgent need for accountability and genuine environmental stewardship.

=> 00:32:45

The political landscape has flipped, with the Democrats abandoning their roots in environmental protection and democracy, while the Republicans step up to defend them.

The Woods Hole Marine Institute now has a contract to dump two million metric tons of sulfuric acid into the ocean. This material is known to destroy any form of life, affecting not only the environment but also destroying genes and cellular structures. The dumping process is often hidden, and it seems that many involved are complicit, having been paid off. This situation is described as sickening and criminal.

Interestingly, there has been a significant inversion in political stances, where Republicans are now focused on protecting the environment, habitat, and children from these toxic chemicals. In contrast, the Democratic party and associated environmental groups appear to have forgotten their original mission. This inversion raises skepticism about the environmental movement's alignment with Democrat policies.

During a recent discussion, the speaker reflected on their personal experiences while running for president. They noted that, as a Democrat, they encountered numerous misadventures on the campaign trail. The goal was to rehabilitate the Democrats, pulling them toward the center and presenting themselves as a credible candidate. However, the speaker experienced practical impediments that made them more aware of how the political process operates, particularly within the Democratic party.

The speaker pointed out the irony that the Democratic party has seemingly come out against democracy. They shared their firsthand observations, recalling how, in 1968, their father was able to challenge the sitting president of his own party through primaries. The speaker believed that if they had been allowed to challenge President Biden, he would have been forced to step down earlier, leading to a more democratic process. Instead, the primaries were canceled, effectively handing the election to Biden without any debate, which prevented the public from seeing his deficiencies.

This situation created an apparatus that supported a candidate who many now recognize as unqualified for the job. The decision-makers behind this strategy remain unclear, but it is suggested that figures like Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan may have played significant roles.

A particularly striking moment occurred during the Democratic National Convention, when Chris Cuomo pointed out the boxes in the arena that cost between one million and one and a half million dollars to occupy. These boxes were filled with the big donors of the Democratic party, including corporate entities like BlackRock. This observation underscores the influence of corporate money in politics and raises questions about the integrity of the party's mission.

=> 00:36:48

True democracy thrives on the free exchange of ideas, even the unpopular ones; censorship is the first step toward totalitarianism.

Clearly, there were people around him, you know, and it could be Anthony Blinken and Sullivan, and even, you know, who knows who else? But whoever was calling the shots, there was a really unbelievable moment during the Democratic National Convention when Chris Cuomo pointed up into the bleachers of the arena where the convention was taking place. He said, "Those are the boxes that cost a million, a million and a half to be in that box right now," referring to the high seats in the owner's boxes at the upper rim of the arena. He continued, "Those are the big donors of the Democratic Party, the corporate donors, the Black Rocks, these kinds of groups that are up there, the military industrial, the big Pharma." Cuomo emphasized that they didn't even know who they were, but they were the ones making all the decisions on the floor.

Moreover, those people ultimately anointed Kamala Harris, who, in my opinion, is disqualified from being president of the United States if she does not believe in freedom of speech. Vice President Harris has repeatedly stated that the First Amendment is a privilege, not a right, and that the government has a duty to censor what she calls misinformation. This is a very dangerous stance. The term misinformation is problematic because the First Amendment protects all speech; it protects lies and is designed not to protect convenient speech but to protect the speech that nobody wants to hear. When the government takes upon itself the right to decide what is true and what is not, then you have a totalitarian system.

We saw this during COVID, where the government was the biggest propagator of misinformation—factually inaccurate information—that it then used to control information and manipulate the public. Protecting lies is important because many of our assumptions about life, policy, politics, war, peace, and the economy began as hypotheses or suppositions that were initially considered dishonest or wrong. The whole process of democracy is a dialectic in which new ideas, often unpopular and perceived as dishonest, challenge existing realities. In that dialectic, through the furnace of debate and dialogue, these ideas are annealed. In a true, functioning democracy, they rise in the marketplace of ideas and become policies if they survive that process.

Nobody should be an arbiter at the outset as to what you can talk about and what you can't. The impulse of the...

=> 00:41:10

In a world where information is power, true democracy thrives on open debate, not censorship.

Moving on to a different subject, nobody should be an arbiter at the beginning, at the outset, as to what you can talk about and what you can't. The impulse of the Democratic Party to censor debate is part of a larger disease, which has to do with centralized control rather than democracy and the mistrust of the people. This mistrust is what democracy is fundamentally about. They believe that the government needs to control what people hear so that they don't become infected with dangerous ideas. Ironically, it was these very dangerous ideas that launched the American Revolution—the idea that people could actually govern themselves, which was considered a lie back then.

Our nation has been about trusting people and avoiding centralized mechanics of control. However, now the Democratic Party seems to be all about the centralization of control. It’s about surveillance, controlling the flow of information, and implementing top-down policies dictated by an oligarchy. This is the opposite of democracy. I saw this firsthand in the Democratic Party. From the beginning, our polls were showing, and almost all the national polls were showing, that I was hurting President Trump. About 57% to 60% of the people who said they were going to vote for me indicated that if I left the race, they would switch their votes to Trump.

So, my presence in the race was actually helping the Democrats. It was the Democrats who were trying to destroy my campaign, even going so far as to sue me. It’s very strange, right? Because I was helping them. The Republican Party made no effort to keep me off the ballot; they didn’t try to discredit me. President Trump did say some obligatory bad things about me, labeling me as a left-wing radical, but those comments weren’t mean-spirited. There was no effort to keep me from speaking. In contrast, the Democrats kept me from speaking, along with their allied media outlets.

For example, when Ross Perot ran in 1992, he had 34 interviews on mainstream media in just 10 months. In the 18 months that I spent in the race, I had only two live interviews. The longest one was with Aon Bernett, which lasted about 22 to 27 minutes. During those live interviews, they couldn’t censor me. However, if you do a taped interview, they can cut out whatever they don’t want the public to hear. Additionally, I wasn’t allowed to write letters to the editor for The Washington Post, The New York Times, or any mainstream democratic periodicals, nor could I publish editorials. This lack of access to that constituency is really why I ultimately had to withdraw.

Moreover, they wouldn’t let me on the debate stage, which was also a form of collusion. The old debating commission, originally run by the League of Women Voters, was independent and unbiased. They had their own rules for letting people in, and they would have allowed me under their rules. However, after 1980, it was run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which was also unbiased. But now, President Biden and President Trump decided not to use the Commission on Debates. Instead, they made a separate deal with CNN. We now know what happened, as reported by The New York Times, where President Biden stated, “we are not going to be on the debate stage.”

=> 00:45:50

The political landscape has shifted dramatically, revealing a troubling irony: the very system meant to uphold democracy is being manipulated to exclude voices and candidates.

The discussion revolves around the collusion that has emerged in the context of presidential debates. Historically, the old debating commission was originally run by my uncle, who had the first televised debate in 1960. For the next 20 years, it was managed by the League of Women Voters, which was known for being independent and unbiased. They had their own rules for candidate inclusion, and under those rules, I would have been allowed to participate.

However, after 1980, the commission transitioned to the Commission on Presidential Debates, which was also unbiased at that time. Recently, both President Biden and President Trump decided not to utilize this commission. Instead, they opted to make separate arrangements with CNN. Reports from the New York Times revealed that during their conversations, President Biden stated, “we are not going to be on the stage with Robert Kennedy,” insisting that CNN keep him off the debate stage. If CNN had rules that allowed Kennedy to participate, Biden indicated that they would not participate.

For CNN, hosting the debate represented tens of millions of dollars, while Trump stood to gain hundreds of millions. Although Trump initially seemed to waver on the issue, he did publicly express that he thought Kennedy should be included in the debate. Similarly, the same exclusionary tactics were observed with ABC, where I met their metrics and thresholds but was still excluded from the debate stage. This exclusion is clearly illegal under FEC rules, which prohibit deliberately excluding a candidate from a debate without neutral rules.

The implications of such actions are significant; if rules are developed specifically to keep someone off the debate stage, it transforms the debate into an illegal campaign contribution. This is why, for instance, Trump's lawyer faced legal consequences for similar actions. The FEC itself is described as an anemic organization, split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, showing little concern for independent candidates.

Reflecting on the current political landscape, about three months ago, President Biden and Kamala Harris issued a statement ridiculing Vladimir Putin, who won the Russian election with 88% of the vote. They pointed out that this was due to his control over the media and the exclusion of other candidates, labeling it as undemocratic. Ironically, this mirrors the system they have implemented here, highlighting how the Democratic Party has seemingly abandoned democratic principles.

This inversion in political dynamics has affected my wife’s worldview, particularly regarding my endorsement of President Trump, which she initially opposed. However, over time, she found it more tolerable, which was important for me to have her support.

Moving forward, I have observed a significant transformation within the Trump administration. I believe he made a major error in the debate with Harris by not emphasizing the makeup of the team he has gathered around him. If I were an American, I would consider voting for Trump simply because Elon Musk has agreed to head a commission investigating inefficiencies in government. Musk has consistently demonstrated his capability in this area.

Trump's team includes notable figures such as Tulsi Gabbard, JD Vance, and Vivek Ramaswamy. These individuals are not only unlikely Republicans but also remarkable in their own right. This transformation within the Republican Party, alongside the inversion of the Democrats, raises intriguing questions about the future of American politics. I am curious about your thoughts on Trump himself, given your numerous meetings with him. You have established a functional agreement, particularly regarding health matters, but I wonder about the broader implications of his leadership style and team composition.

=> 00:50:00

In a world of shifting political alliances, unexpected partnerships can emerge from the most unlikely places.

In recent discussions, it has become evident that Trump has gathered a unique team around him, which includes notable figures such as Musk, Tulsi Gabbard, JD Vance, and Vivek Ramaswamy. These individuals are unlikely Republicans, to say the least, and they are also remarkable people. This transformation within the Republican Party parallels the inversion of the Democrats that has been described in multiple dimensions.

I am curious about your thoughts on Trump himself. You have met with him many times and have established what seems to be a functional agreement. He has listened to you, particularly on health issues, but there are also other individuals surrounding him who remind me of you. They are not the typical political players; rather, they are much more entrepreneurial and certainly not classic Republicans. What are your sentiments regarding Trump and the team that is currently around him?

I had multiple discussions following a significant event—President Trump’s shooting in Butler. About two hours after the incident, I received a call from a man named Cali Means, who is a genius at the forefront of reforming our food system and addressing the chronic disease epidemic. He suggested that I might be interested in discussing a partnership with the Trump team to unify our parties. Initially, I said no immediately. However, after consulting with my family, particularly my wife, who suggested I should talk to him out of compassion given the circumstances, I reconsidered. My kids also encouraged me to hear him out.

I then sent Cali Means a text expressing my interest, and shortly after, I received a three-way text from Tucker Carlson that included President Trump’s cell phone number. I agreed to talk, and a few minutes later, I received a call from Trump. We spoke for about 30 to 35 minutes, discussing various issues, including his shooting and topics that I was interested in. He expressed a kind of alignment with me on some of these issues.

The next day, we met in Miluk for about two and a half hours. During our conversation, we covered a range of topics: the food system, the chronic disease epidemic, and the issues surrounding war and addiction. I was particularly impressed by his visceral revulsion toward the Neocons and their imperialistic views, both abroad and at home. He articulated that imperialism abroad is inconsistent with democracy at home, and he also expressed strong opposition to censorship, which he has personally experienced, much like I have.

After our meeting, there was a suggestion for me to participate in the Republican convention, but I was not ready to commit to anything at that time. Following this, I reached out to the Harris campaign to see if she would be open to a conversation, but she outright declined. I wonder why that was the case, as one would think a conversation could be beneficial.

=> 00:54:37

Imperialism abroad and censorship at home undermine democracy; true unity thrives on open dialogue, not division.

The discussion surrounding imperialism abroad and its inconsistency with democracy at home is profound. It also touches upon the issue of censorship, which has been a visceral concern for many, including myself. I believe this stems from personal experiences, as both I and others have been targets of censorship. We reached a consensus that there were grounds for collaboration.

Initially, I was approached to participate in the Republican convention, but I felt unprepared to engage at that time. Subsequently, I reached out to the Harris campaign to explore the possibility of a conversation. However, she outright declined my request. I found this refusal puzzling; it seems unimaginable that one would not want to have a conversation, especially considering the tight race that could be decided by just a few points. My following was substantial enough to potentially influence the outcome.

There are various speculations as to why this conversation did not happen. Perhaps it was a case of guilt by association, as I have had extensive experience within the Democratic Party. Additionally, many in that party seem to believe their own narratives, often shaped by mainstream media outlets like the New York Times and CNN. Living in such an information echo chamber means they may never hear my perspective or understand my issues. Instead, they are bombarded with labels such as antifa, anti-science, and lunatic—standard defamations propagated by the Democratic-controlled media. It’s likely that some of them genuinely believe these misconceptions.

Despite these challenges, I continued my conversations with the Trump campaign, including several personal discussions with President Trump himself.

Shifting focus, I want to address the current situation in Israel. Imagine waking up one day to find your entire world turned upside down; this is the harsh reality for countless families in Israel today. Communities are shattered, lives are uprooted, and a constant threat looms overhead. It serves as a stark reminder of how quickly peace can crumble in times of chaos. It’s not merely about survival; it’s about standing firm, showing solidarity, and taking action.

This is where the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews plays a vital role. They are not just passive observers; they are actively providing tangible support on the ground. As we approach the one-year mark since October 7th, the fellowship is launching the Flags of Fellowship campaign. This initiative is a powerful way for us to demonstrate that we remember, we care, and we stand united.

On October 6th, churchyards across America will be transformed into seas of blue and white, with each Israeli flag planted representing a life lost—a story cut too short. This is more than a visual tribute; it is a statement to the world that we will never forget.

You can also be part of the Flags of Fellowship. There is an urgent need for food and basic supplies for families evacuating and trying to survive in communities affected by the ongoing war. We are asking 1,200 of our listeners to contribute $100 to help provide emergency food boxes for displaced families in Israel. Israel needs our support now more than ever.

To contribute, please visit Jordanforthefellowship.org. Remember, that’s Jordanforthefellowship.org. Thank you, and God bless.

In conclusion, I had the opportunity to visit Mar-a-Lago with my daughter-in-law, Amarilis, who manages my campaign. We spent several hours discussing these pressing issues with Don Jr. and President Trump, as well as Susie Wild's campaign manager. We agreed to embark on a Unity campaign, similar to coalitions in Europe, where we can maintain our independence and capacity to critique our allies without penalty. This agreement allows us to continue our alliance while addressing our differences openly.

=> 00:58:51

Collaboration over conflict can lead to real change; even in politics, unity doesn't mean losing your voice.

Amarilis, my daughter-in-law who runs my campaign, and I sat down with Don Jr., President Trump, and Susie Wild's campaign manager for several hours to discuss various issues. We agreed to initiate a Unity campaign, similar to those seen in Europe, where coalitions exist without compromising individual independence or the capacity to criticize allies on disagreements. President Trump was very agreeable to this approach.

We established that on the issues where we do not see eye to eye, I would continue to criticize him, and he could criticize me without any penalty to our alliance. Conversely, on the issues we did agree upon, he committed to prioritizing them and involving me in some capacity in the selection of the new government and emphasizing the policies I was concerned about. The three primary policies we focused on were Children's Health, addressing the chronic disease epidemic—which involves reforming the food system and eliminating corruption from public health agencies like the USDA—ending censorship and surveillance, and immediately concluding the Ukraine war. These were significant issues that he had independently recognized, and I believe he appreciated my insights, passion, and expertise regarding them.

During our conversation, I discovered several illuminating aspects about President Trump. He, along with Donald Jr. and JD Vance, expressed extraordinary antipathy toward the neocons and their impact on our country. I was surprised by their knowledge and passion regarding this topic. JD Vance, being a soldier, brought a unique perspective shaped by his military service abroad. As for Donald Trump Jr., while I am not entirely sure how he developed his antagonism toward neoconservatives, it was evident that it was heartfelt. This gave me confidence, knowing he is surrounded by family members who share similar views and will be involved in his administration.

We also discussed the possibility of bringing Tulsi Gabbard onto the team, and they were very welcoming of that idea. Tulsi, who had previously served as the deputy director of the Democratic National Committee and was a formidable figure as a Democratic presidential candidate and congresswoman, has had significant challenges with the Democrats. I have a long-standing, friendly relationship with her, which further supports this idea.

President Trump also reflected on his experience from the last election in 2016. He mentioned that they did not expect to win and were unprepared for the transition. He recalled how, upon launching the transition committee in January, he was immediately surrounded by business people and lobbyists urging him to select various individuals for positions. He later regretted those choices, describing many of those people as "bad." This time, he expressed a desire to do things differently. He announced plans to launch a transition committee starting that week, funded by private donors rather than the general accounting office, which typically finances such committees after the election. This proactive approach would allow for the establishment of a government well in advance of the election.

Lastly, he acknowledged that one of the big complaints against President Trump has been...

=> 01:03:41

Don't let the labels define you; true character is richer than the narratives we hear.

In a recent discussion, it was noted that he later came to regret it, referring to past decisions made by certain individuals. The speaker mentioned that a lot of those people were bad people, highlighting a desire for change. He expressed, I don't want to do that this time; I want to do something completely different. To facilitate this change, he announced the launch of a transition committee starting this week. Typically, this committee is funded by the General Accounting Office and is established after an election; however, he has managed to secure private donors to pay for the transition committee, allowing it to start four or five months early. This proactive approach aims to ensure that a government can be put in place effectively.

Additionally, he addressed a significant complaint against President Trump, stating that he's sort of a captive of the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025. He clarified, Project 2025—they keep trying to stick that to me; I've never read it, I never heard of it until people started telling me that I was behind it. He emphasized that it was written by a right-wing group, and he disavowed being pigeonholed into an ideological category. This perspective suggests that his administration may take a different direction, as he is surrounded by entrepreneurial people who really are common sense and want to do the right thing for the country.

The speaker also reflected on their understanding of President Trump, noting that they have been vilified and demonized by the press. They acknowledged that many people view them as this real insane crazy person, and similarly, a lot of the things that have been said about President Trump are the same—propaganda tropes that oversimplify his character and personality.

Shifting focus, the speaker considered the perspective of the Democrats. They mentioned having contacts who argue that things have genuinely shifted since Harris took the reins. These contacts pointed to a relatively less emphasis on the climate crisis and a shelving or siloing of the more radical leftist movement within the Democrats. The speaker questioned whether this shift towards the center is real or merely an illusion, given their personal experiences with the Democratic Party's machinations.

They noted that both Tim Walz and Hillary, seen as bellwethers for the Democratic Party, have been vocal about censorship and their enthusiasm for government censorship. However, there has been little discussion about the censorship now taking place in Europe or Brazil, which raises concerns. The speaker cited examples such as the ban on Twitter in Brazil and the arrest of Pablo Duro in France, emphasizing that these events reflect a troubling trend of censorship. They pointed out that Europe is openly censoring content already, and the lack of response from Democratic leaders on these issues is notable.

=> 01:08:19

Censorship is a threat to democracy, and when governments silence voices, they undermine the very principles they claim to uphold.

The current enthusiasm for government censorship and the discussions surrounding how authorities plan to crack down on social media platforms is alarming. Notably, there has been little to no public discourse regarding the censorship now taking place in Europe or in Brazil. For instance, one can observe the implications of Nome's new bill in California, alongside the ban on Twitter in Brazil and the arrest of Pablo Duro in France. This incident is particularly extraordinary, as it involved the head of Telegram being forcibly removed from his plane during a refueling stop and subsequently jailed. Such actions raise concerns, especially since Europe is openly censoring content already.

Additionally, it is important to note that France has an extradition treaty with Abu Dhabi, which means they could have arrested Duro anytime they wished. This situation appears to serve as a deliberate warning to the world: if you challenge the system, you will be chewed up and spit out. The context of the Ukraine war also plays a significant role, as Telegram is widely used in both Ukraine and Russia. There are various groups in Ukraine that are pro-Ukrainian, as well as groups in Russia that support the war, which complicates the narrative further. It is plausible that this crackdown was US instigated.

France has historically held a strong commitment to freedom of speech, as evidenced by the laws passed during the French Revolution in 1789 and further reinforced in the 1880s. These laws established freedom of speech as sacred in France, reflecting a robust attachment to freedom of expression similar to that in the United States. However, this commitment seems to have been abandoned overnight. If America truly aspired to be the exemplary nation and a promoter of democracy globally, it would focus less on overthrowing democratically elected governments and more on defending freedom of speech. The abandonment of these principles by Western democracies should prompt objections, as it is detrimental not only to those countries but also to Americans.

A recent example of this troubling trend is the resignation of Derry Braton, the commissioner of the European Commission, who threatened Elon Musk with criminal and civil prosecution if he allowed the former President of the United States to speak without prior permission. This situation raises significant concerns about the protection of democratic values. A genuine leader, such as President Biden or Vice President Harris, should be vocally opposing such actions, emphasizing that you do not do that in a democracy.

Furthermore, it is crucial to understand that censorship is incompatible with democracy, and failing to recognize this disqualifies one from being President of the United States. There are concerns about the sincerity of Vice President Harris's positions, as many of her statements appear to be politically motivated rather than heartfelt. For example, her promise regarding taxing tips, which she seemingly borrowed from President Trump, appears to be a last-minute political maneuver. Her inconsistent stance on the border and her failure to address these inconsistencies further suggest a lack of genuine commitment.

Moreover, her ambitious proposal to provide every new business in the country with a $50,000 gift seems unrealistic. In New York alone, where thousands of new businesses start each day, this would amount to $50 million a day, an unsustainable figure. The promise of hundreds of billions of dollars annually raises questions about the source of such funding. Overall, the discourse surrounding these issues highlights a troubling trend in the intersection of censorship, democracy, and political motivations.

=> 01:12:41

Political promises without substance can lead to disastrous consequences.

Savvy her change on the border reflects her failure to explain why she didn't do that before. You know, all of the inconsistencies in that seem again not heartfelt but politically driven. The big signature for economic reform that she promised during the convention was to give every new business in this country $50,000 gift. Well, you know, that just is laughable. In New York, there are thousands of new businesses starting a day; that would be $50 million a day just for New York businesses. If you gave that money, there'd be 2,000 or 3,000 new businesses that would be gained so fast you could hardly imagine it.

So, she's talking about hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and where's that money going to come from? Then, you know, her other idea, which is just a half-baked, discredited, terrible idea about price controls and wage controls, has been a catastrophe every time that's been tried. There's no place where it has been done right; it can't be done right. None of these ideas seem to be well thought out; none of them appear to be part of a coherent and consistent ideology or thought process. They lack common sense.

I think she did very well in the debate, but to be fair, anybody can do well in a debate. Anyone who can pass the bar exam can do it. However, the bar for her was low. You can anticipate 95% of the questions that you're going to be asked, and if you're surrounded by good people, they can write you up a good 90-second sound bite. She had these sound bites and delivered them well, but her understanding of issues seems to be an inch deep and a mile wide.

What I would really like to see is her going on long-form interviews. I would like to see her being asked a second question, a third question: "Why did you do this? Explain this. How is this consistent? What was your evolution?" Just asking the kind of questions that any curious interviewer would ask and making her explain that. She can't do it, and this is somebody who's supposed to be President of the United States, who should be able to go toe-to-toe with our critics around the world, explain her vision, her record, and her aspirations for our country.

It seems like she does not understand the uses of power. We're seeing that with her support for the Ukraine war and the risk of nuclear war. I don't think she has any comprehension of it. I don't think she has the ability to talk to foreign leaders; I haven't seen any evidence of that. I think she is susceptible to manipulation because she doesn't have firm ideas of her own. I fear that she'll be manipulated by the Deep State, by the people who want the war, by the neocons that run the White House now and the foreign policy apparatus of the State Department.

I fear that those entities actually want a nuclear war, like they did in my uncle's time and like they've done for many years. They want a confrontation with Russia that will fragment Russia and give us access to its natural resources while eliminating our big competitor in the West. All of their policies have been bad. That's a dire prognostication, that's for sure.

So, I'm worried about her. I'm worried she won't protect our civil rights and constitutional rights at home, and she will allow America to be dragged into really catastrophic wars abroad. At this point in history, with the emergence of all these surveillance technologies and AI, if we get a president like that, it may be too late for our country to ever recover.

Attention men who still believe in the American dream in a world gone mad: the Precision Five from Jeremy's Razor stands as a beacon of sanity. Five blades of superior engineering offer a shave as unshakable as your faith that the nation's best days still lie ahead. Experience an exceptionally smooth, remarkably close shave—a testament to the fact that merit still matters. Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you; get Jeremy Razor's Precision 5 instead, available now at JeremyRazor.com, Walmart.com, and Amazon.

=> 01:16:53

The health crisis in America is a ticking time bomb, fueled by processed foods and chronic diseases, and it's time we prioritize our well-being over convenience.

In this critical time in history, the potential election of a president who does not prioritize the well-being of the nation could lead to irreversible consequences. If we get a president like that, it may be too late for our country to ever recover. This sentiment resonates with many who still believe in the American dream in a world gone mad.

Amidst this turmoil, the Precision Five from Jeremy's Razer stands as a beacon of sanity. With five blades of superior engineering, it offers a shave that is as unshakable as the belief that the nation's best days still lie ahead. Users can experience an exceptionally smooth and remarkably close shave, which serves as a testament to the fact that merit still matters. It is time to stop giving your money to woke corporations that do not support you; instead, consider Jeremy Razer's Precision 5, available now at JeremyRazer.com, Walmart.com, and Amazon.

Transitioning to political discussions, you laid out three policy areas where you felt you could work effectively with President Trump: health, speech, and peace. We spent considerable time focusing on free speech and peace and war, and I believe we will delve deeper into the peace and war issue in our upcoming discussions. However, I would like to conclude with some thoughts on the health crisis.

One of your unprecedented contributions to public discourse since teaming up with Trump has been to make public health a political issue. You have highlighted the public health crisis, which includes serious problems such as the obesity epidemic and the diabetes epidemic. Your focus on these issues is not characteristic of anyone else in the political landscape, and now they have become front and center in public discussions.

You mentioned that we are now the sickest country in the world, with the highest chronic disease burden globally. When your uncle was president, only about 6% of Americans had chronic illness, whereas today, that number has skyrocketed to 60%. Back then, we spent zero on chronic disease, and now we allocate $4.3 trillion—about 95% of our health budget—to it. This expenditure is five times our military cost and is the fastest-growing item in our budget. The economic impact of this crisis is absolutely debilitating, overshadowing all other issues.

Moreover, 77% of American children are no longer eligible for the military due to chronic disease, a significant portion of which is related to obesity. When your uncle was president, the obesity rate was 3.4%, but today it has surged to 74%.

You raised an important question: What do you think is driving the obesity epidemic? The transformation is indeed alarming, and you attribute it to poison food—specifically, processed, ultra-processed wheat, sugar, and flour. These ingredients, heavily subsidized by the government, are the feedstocks for most processed foods. They are nutrient-barren and have been transformed through genetic modification (GMO) processes, which make them resistant to pesticides. This resistance allows for the widespread use of glyphosate, saturating the landscape while leaving only GMO corn standing.

In summary, the health crisis in America is a complex issue, deeply intertwined with economic policies and agricultural practices. Addressing it requires a comprehensive understanding of the underlying factors contributing to the epidemic, as well as a commitment to prioritizing public health in political discourse.

=> 01:21:22

Our food system is poisoning us with nutrient-poor, pesticide-laden crops, leading to a surge in chronic diseases and obesity.

The discussion highlights significant concerns regarding the nutritional quality of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their impact on health. It is noted that original crops were nutrient-rich, whereas GMO crops are nutrient barren and heavily dependent on pesticides. The popularity of GMOs stems from their resistance to pests, which is achieved through their ability to withstand pesticides like glyphosate. This allows for extensive application of glyphosate across landscapes, resulting in only GMO corn surviving, commonly referred to as Roundup Ready corn. Consequently, this corn is heavily laden with pesticides.

Furthermore, glyphosate is used as a desiccant, meaning it is sprayed on wheat at harvest time, which leads to its presence in the food supply. This practice began in 1993, coinciding with a noticeable increase in gluten allergies, celiac disease, and wheat allergies in the United States—conditions that are less prevalent in Europe. For instance, one can eat spaghetti in Italy without adverse effects, while in the U.S., it may trigger eczema and various stomach complaints.

Additionally, corn is processed into high fructose corn syrup, which is linked to obesity and diabetes. The statistics are alarming; when the speaker was a child, a pediatrician might see one case of juvenile diabetes in their career, whereas today, one out of every three kids entering a pediatrician's office is either diabetic or pre-diabetic. The financial burden is significant, as the U.S. spends more on diabetes than on its military budget.

The speaker emphasizes that many chronic diseases, including autoimmune diseases and Alzheimer's, which is referred to as type three diabetes, stem from poisonous food. The discussion raises the question of how much of the health crisis is due to toxin load versus carbohydrate overload. It is suggested that the overload of sugars from grains, which convert into sucrose, contributes to malnutrition, despite high levels of obesity.

The most malnourished individuals in the U.S. tend to be the most overweight, as they consume food-like substances that are laden with chemicals and pesticides. There are numerous ingredients in American food that are illegal in Europe, leading to what the speaker describes as mass poisoning. This situation contributes to the chronic disease epidemic in the U.S., which is reflected in the country's high death rate from COVID-19.

The CDC reports that the average American who died from COVID-19 had 3.8 chronic diseases, indicating that it is not solely COVID-19 that is responsible for these deaths, but rather the underlying chronic conditions. The U.S. has the highest chronic disease burden and the highest COVID death rate.

The speaker also notes the rise of various autoimmune diseases and neurological disorders, such as ADD, ADHD, and autism, which were virtually unheard of in previous generations. For example, the prevalence of autism has dramatically increased, with current statistics indicating that one in every 34 children is affected, and in California, it is one in every 22. This trend poses a significant threat to the economy and society, with projections suggesting that the cost associated with autism alone could reach a trillion dollars a year by 2030.

In conclusion, the speaker reflects on the drastic changes in health and disease prevalence over the decades, emphasizing that these issues were largely absent in their childhood, where they had 11 siblings and 71 first cousins without any known cases of such diseases.

=> 01:25:43

The alarming rise in chronic diseases and allergies among today's children demands urgent action and a shift in research focus from drug development to understanding the root causes.

Neurological diseases such as ADD, ADHD, speech and language disorders, Tourette Syndrome, narcolepsy, and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are becoming increasingly prevalent. In my generation, the prevalence of autism among 70-year-old men was about one in every 1,500 to one in every 10,000. However, today, my children's generation faces a stark contrast, with statistics showing one in every 34 kids affected according to the CDC, and one in every 22 in California. This situation is devastating for our generation and poses significant challenges for our economy. A recent paper by Mark Blal indicates that the costs associated with autism alone could reach a trillion dollars a year by 2030.

In addition to neurological diseases, there is a troubling rise in allergic diseases. During my childhood, I had 11 siblings and 71 first cousins, yet I never knew anyone with a peanut allergy. Today, however, five of my seven children have allergies. This raises questions about the underlying causes of these health issues. We are up against some major forces in fighting this particular battle. First, we need to sway public opinion in the right direction, and then we must contend with a massive force arrayed against any possible interventions.

When considering potential actions, I believe that while there will be attempts to stop us, I have been contemplating these issues for 40 years and have strategies in place. I have collaborated with experts like Mark Hyman, Cy Means, and Casey Means to devise methods that do not require Congressional approval, focusing instead on executive orders and policy changes. For instance, it is possible to remove fluoride from water systems across the country through executive order, which is a significant public health issue linked to cancer.

However, certain actions, such as banning glyphosate, which is associated with various health problems and cancers, would be challenging to achieve through Congress. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has a budget of $42 billion a year, distributing funds to 56,000 scientists mainly in research centers across North America and some parts of Europe. Unfortunately, much of this funding is directed toward drug development for the pharmaceutical industry rather than basic science. This shift occurred after the Bayh-Dole Act was passed in 1980, allowing NIH scientists to collect royalties on pharmaceutical products they developed, leading to a partnership with the pharmaceutical industry.

As a result, the NIH has become the primary incubator for new pharmaceutical drugs, while research into the origins and causes of chronic diseases has been neglected. Scientists attempting to study these causes often face professional repercussions. My goal is to reform the NIH to prioritize research into the causes of chronic diseases. Currently, there is very little scientific inquiry into the causes of conditions like diabetes, which is a deliberate oversight. I intend to ensure that extensive research is conducted—not just one study, but 100 studies—to uncover these causes.

When a significant number of studies are produced, they can influence legal outcomes. There is a rule in federal courts known as the Daubert Rule, which states that if someone believes they were harmed by a product, such as Coca-Cola causing obesity, they cannot sue unless there is a critical mass of studies—perhaps 20 or 30—to support their claim. In high-profile cases, such as my involvement in the Monsanto trial, the ability to meet the Daubert threshold is crucial. We presented around 20 studies demonstrating that Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including a variety of research types such as animal studies, observational studies, and epidemiological studies, to establish a robust case.

=> 01:30:11

Justice requires a critical mass of evidence; without it, accountability remains out of reach.

In discussing the legal challenges associated with suing companies like Coca-Cola for obesity, it is important to note that you can't sue Coca-Cola unless there's at least a critical mass of studies—perhaps 20 or 30—that support the claim that their products are responsible for such health issues. This situation acts as a liability enhancer, meaning that the judge must determine whether the evidence meets the Daubert threshold before allowing the case to proceed to a jury.

Reflecting on a significant case, the Monsanto trial, where I was part of the trial team, we faced a similar threshold. We had about 20 studies that showed that Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. These studies included a variety of research types: mouse studies, rat studies, animal studies, bench studies, observational studies, and epidemiological studies. Once we achieved that critical mass of evidence, we were able to present our case to a jury.

In this instance, we represented 40,000 home gardeners who had developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma from using Roundup in their backyards. The approach in multi-district litigation involves trying one case at a time, rapidly, until a resolution is reached. If you lose all the cases, you risk running out of funds, as litigation can be very costly. Conversely, winning can compel the manufacturer to negotiate a settlement. In our trials, we achieved significant victories: we won $289 million in the first trial, $89 million in the second, and in the third trial, we sought $1 billion and received $2.2 billion from the jury. Ultimately, Monsanto came to the negotiating table, and we settled the cases for $13 billion, with an agreement to remove glyphosate from home gardening products.

Looking ahead, there is a sense that once enough evidence is presented, companies may choose to discontinue certain products rather than face litigation. For instance, in the context of high fructose corn syrup, it is anticipated that lawyers will come out of the woodwork representing numerous children with diabetes, leading companies to reconsider their product lines.

As we conclude this discussion, I want to mention that I will continue this conversation on The Daily Wire side, where I plan to delve deeper into foreign policy and the current state of global affairs, particularly regarding Israel and Gaza, as well as Ukraine and Russia. There are numerous other pressing issues to address as well.

Additionally, I look forward to seeing everyone again in about two weeks in Washington, D.C., for the Rescue the Republic event organized by Brett Weinstein. This gathering is crucial for those concerned about the slide of America into censorship, surveillance, and totalitarianism. It promises to be a significant event, reminiscent of the march on the Pentagon back in the 60s, and is expected to be one of the largest marches ever protesting the ugly descent into an apocalypse for democracy.

Thank you very much for your time and attention. I hope that the powers that be at YouTube will allow this interview to remain available, as they previously took down our last discussion, which was quite disappointing. I appreciate your presence here today, and I wish you luck with your ongoing negotiations with Trump—it's certainly a twisting turn of affairs.

To everyone watching and listening, please consider attending the Rescue the Republic event on September 29th in Washington, D.C. It promises to be a remarkable occasion, featuring music and speeches from individuals whose ideas are worth hearing. This is truly a once-in-a-generation event, so make your way there. Thank you once again, and thank you, Jordan.